Destructible Houses Combined thread /Mod

[Traceur]

Originally Posted by Bulveigh

think what you want traceur, i think the idea of destructable houses is completely shit.. Destructable/capturable castles/cities is something different.. But destroyable privates houses dont make the community langer.

Larg communitys?
I will be the first, that search some fellows and destroy some houses of my own community. Deep in the city, far away from the guards an the border of the city.
And when one of this houses where yours, i ask you again how cool this system is :P


I get tired of taling about something, where i think this will NEVER be in game. So have fun, diskuss about the badest idea i ever heard

really? your going to come into town with a huge costly siege engine?

don't be so sure it won't be in the game. they claim to plan a sandbox game emphasizing freedom, regardless of your wishes, they might actually do that.

[Bulveigh]

but.. i be shure really shure..

cause they dont wanna do a Only PvP 3d shooter. They sayd that many of the devs played uo, and miss these times. They want to bring back the feeling of Ultima.

[Probotektor]

As much as I like the basic idea of destroyable houses it would in the end leave me just with the option to not afford a house.

Why should I invest a tremendeous amount of ingame money (which would be reallife time) in something that can be easylie wiped of the face of earth by the first moron, who happens to pass by to some weird time during night?

I really hate to admit it, but Bulveigh has a point when he says, that houses will be destroyed by players if they´ve got the ability to do so.

And I am absolutely sure that a lot of players will burn down every cab they can find just in order to yell around "I PWNED YER HOUSE, NOOB". Just see the "pocket mount thread, if you want to know who will definitely throw the first torch.^^



I thought about the option of allowing kind of both things:

-As long as at least one member of the house owners is online the house can be attacked.
-As soon as no one of the house owners is online, the house will be rendered invulnerable.

But with a little thinking I threw this idea overboard, because it just has too many loopholes.

To name the worst ones:
-If a guild communicates with some game external program they can chicken out of every serious attempt of conquering their house.
-If a group is considerably stronger than another one, they can lay siege to the house of another group and put them into a loose-loose situation: If they come online, they loose their house, if they stay offline, they can´t play.



Additionally I don´t like the idea of thieves sneaking around in my living-room and taking off with my faberge-egg collection while I´m at work.

[Traceur]

Originally Posted by Bulveigh

but.. i be shure really shure..

cause they dont wanna do a Only PvP 3d shooter. They sayd that many of the devs played uo, and miss these times. They want to bring back the feeling of Ultima.

ultima was my first MMO and that feeling molded most of my pusually disapointed] expectations of modern MMOs.

but i recognize that some things they did right, others they could have done better - and housing & guilds is one of those area's IMHO.

it's not UO 3D. i don't want an UO 3D. i want a game that tries to achieve what UO tried too - fantasy world simulator - including where it didn't succeed.

[Bulveigh]

then feel free to hope that they include destroyable houses.

But i can say you: They dont do. Cause they wanna make a game, where players stay in...

And a sandbox game, where you cannot collect rares and show them in your house without feel fear in every minute you dont play, will not keep players.



I dont want to play in a 1000 player guild. I want to play in a small guild, and own a nice log cabin somewhere in the woods, be a theif/murder and collect many many stuff to build me a really bug and well decorated house.
Cause i have a job, and dont want to be forced think about my houses safety when i am at work...

[Erroneous]

Good points Probotektor and Bulveigh, I certainly agree this will be a community of homicidal maniacs, all houses will be targets even if they aren't on very valuable real estate. But as you mentioned there really isn't any way to make something indestructible without making it exploitable.

I'll also say that this is one area where if the implementation doesn't work the game may be absolutely not fun at all to play. It will require a lot of balancing to make it work, and in the end that focus may be better spent elsewhere, but seeing as how this is a game forum with many gameplay features still unrevealed and maybe even endecided it is fun to speculate and advise on what you think a true next generation MMO should offer.

[Welwordion]

Well rather than destructable I would say a house has to be deconstructable, you can not just destory it easily and if you try to deconstruct a house you have no permission to do so there could be serious defence mechanisms and mechansim to hide any belongings in it like a spell that makes everything dematerialize until the owner reverses it. That way destroying a house would be quite some work only for a joke and you would not get anything to plunder from it.
And as this is a crime a bounty could be put on any jerk doing this.
Also mayber there could be a certain hard to transport wagon, tool etc needed to construct and deconstruct maybe this tool would be governmental controlled etc.

[James Olson]

Destructable property? Really guys? The only argument I see for it is: "its open pvp, im so fucking hardcore." But its plainly a bad idea, one that will prevent players from staying with the game for the long haul. Not to mention how easily exploitable/greifable this is.

But hey, I'm all for destructable property if they also have character perma-death. If you want hardcore, do it right.

[Traceur]

Originally Posted by Bulveigh

I don't want to play in a 1000 player guild. I want to play in a small guild, and own a nice log cabin somewhere in the woods, be a thief/murder and collect many many stuff to build me a really bug and well decorated house....

then sign treaties, try to avoid making enemies, avoid building it on impotent trade routes, etc...

do what a character who'd want to be part of a small community would do - think like your character.

Originally Posted by Bulveigh

Cause i have a job, and don't want to be forced think about my houses safety when i am at work...

neither do i, and i won't, not because the game made it impossible, but because i took the strategic measures to make it improbable.

Originally Posted by Bulveigh

And a sandbox game, where you cannot collect rares and show them in your house without feel fear in every minute you don't play, will not keep players. ...

if that's was the case, then a sandbox game can't keep players - the end. UO was as sandoxish as it could have being in the time - it was the first, but it wasn't a 100% sandbox game. if it was, then we wouldn't have being having this conversation.

one thing i don't understand, is why your ok with lootable houses - where i can steal all the content in your museum and empty it out - your even ok with letting me steal your house and change the locks - but your not ok with me destroying it altogether...

why?

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by James Olson

Destructable property? Really guys? The only argument I see for it is: "its open pvp, im so fucking hardcore." But its plainly a bad idea, one that will prevent players from staying with the game for the long haul. Not to mention how easily exploitable/greifable this is.

But hey, I'm all for destructable property if they also have character perma-death. If you want hardcore, do it right.

People have raised some valid arguments I believe.

Just as FFA PvP limits the chances of success for individual players and leads to clanning, destructible houses encourages players to build in clusters fostering community.

Just as FPS style combat forces players to succeed on their own abilities and not game mechanics, destructible housing limits the opportunities for players to explot being able to put portable safezones up wherever they wish.

Constant competition over housing will decrease the number of total houses on the server, lessening ugly sprawl and freeing up more system resources. It will also act as a significant drain on resources lessening the impact of inflation.

It is not hardcore for hardcore's sake. But, I agree that it is difficult to implement and if done poorly will be just plain no fun. And at the end of the day that trumps everything else.

[lawlerz]

I can't believe people actually played a uo just to show off their shit. Playing the game should be fun and interesting so that never happens. I hope this game doesn't turn into land filled museums.

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

People have raised some valid arguments I believe.

Just as FFA PvP limits the chances of success for individual players and leads to clanning, destructible houses encourages players to build in clusters fostering community.

Just as FPS style combat forces players to succeed on their own abilities and not game mechanics, destructible housing limits the opportunities for players to explot being able to put portable safezones up wherever they wish.

Constant competition over housing will decrease the number of total houses on the server, lessening ugly sprawl and freeing up more system resources. It will also act as a significant drain on resources lessening the impact of inflation.

It is not hardcore for hardcore's sake. But, I agree that it is difficult to implement and if done poorly will be just plain no fun. And at the end of the day that trumps everything else.

QFT.

[iMP]

I cant see any reason why u can destroy other houses..
if there was, u didnt dare to have anything in them. and they had to go CHEAP to build.
its just plain stupid to even think that way, we want houses u can decorate, collect youre loot, etc.

house fighting in uo was fun, why? coz there was always stupid ppl standing in the step of ure house, trying to get in while they where banned, and didnt even think of giving up and get back later, .. NOOOOO they stand outside thinking that the house would fall.
as said i Lived on xroad in uo.. belive me there where ALOT of action daliy , and alot of house fighting, thoes stupid guys just didnt realize that they where sitting ducks..

so blame it on house fight,, dumb.. blame it on the stupid ppl that dont know how to outsmart the guys in the house.. remeber there where a whole guild outside our house. wit a few tamers everyone with dragon.. they had NO idea how to pvp.. so.. it ended whith all dragons dead, ALOT of dead bodys. and a few that gave up after like 1-2 hours. =)

just learn to play. and house fighting wont be that big trouble for you.
uo if by FAR the best mmo i played, there is not anyone even close to uo.


And yes i died ALOT ALOT!! coz everyone know who i was. when i was in gold hunt.
ofcoz i was pissed atm, but hey thats the game. it wasnt more then fair that they killed me with bag full of gold.

PLEASE GIVE BACK THE AWSOME GAME!!

[Traceur]

look, we need to get out of the "this is what i like to do and i can't do in other games and i can't find a way do it under the new circumstances in this game, so nobody will play it if this happens!" logic. it's the same logic people use against free PvP and against full loot.

i like playing on foot. i know a lot of people who do. mounted combat means i will be in a severe disadvantage for almost every combat role except archery (assuming they don't include Mongolian riding techniques) - does this mean nobody will play this game if it has mounted combat? it's a type of logic we need to get away from.

[Sarvoth]

I think houses should not be destructible if actively used.

Now, I will admit, yes in UO, I was one individual who uses the sandbag / boat ramp trick to bypass a wall on a keep next to the water and proceeded to rob the whole house. Now, I did this because the people who owned the would often F' with people in my guild frequently. I felt it was fair game - even though it was a bug after all (if you don't know what the sand bag bug was, oh well).

Now, as for boats, that was neat too for a while :P seems the UO devs failed to see what would happen if you road your boat up close to someone else's and reached for the items on the other boat... :P Since my guild was based pirates.. we used this to our full advantage. I even at one point, took a bag filled to the brim with female leather armor - and after a month of waiting - sold it to the owner in which I robbed and he didn't figure it out.

So, no to destructible houses - but if theres a bug here or there for people to abuse to rob others, expect it to be used and it is pretty common sense that if you walk around with the keys to your house, expect it to be robbed when you get killed and looted.

[James Olson]

Originally Posted by Traceur

look, we need to get out of the "this is what i like to do and i can't do in other games and i can't find a way do it under the new circumstances in this game, so nobody will play it if this happens!" logic. it's the same logic people use against free PvP and against full loot.

i like playing on foot. i know a lot of people who do. mounted combat means i will be in a severe disadvantage for almost every combat role except archery (assuming they don't include Mongolian riding techniques) - does this mean nobody will play this game if it has mounted combat? it's a type of logic we need to get away from.

I don't think anyone is using that flawed logic. Surely they are using the same logic that applies to full loot to housing. "Don't build what you can't afford to lose." Why build a nice house when some douche can just torch it? Why buy a house when I can just tear yours down and build my own? Why even personalize the house, or put any items in it when you can loose it all. See how this is just a bad idea? This is not shadowbane where there will be a very limited number of slots available for housing. If you thirst for siege style combat, drink deeply from games like daoc or shadowbane. Or request siege combat in this game.

I think UO's housing was a step in the right direction. Your house would decay once you failed to refresh it for a period of time. So if your account was deactivated, it would eventually fall. And the space for housing was finite, so once the server was established you were hard pressed to find a place to plot your own land. In that case, you raised money to go out and buy one. This made houses your permanent stake in the virtual world. Not some disposable commodity which it would become if the houses could be targeted for attack.

[Sarkon]

Originally Posted by Bulveigh

sensless voting.

destroyable houses are completely shit..

/signed

[Shinzon]

Player can be killed, house can be raided and destroyed, FULL PvP... Just encourages you not to build a huge mansion with no protection in the middle of an orc camp...

[James Olson]

Originally Posted by Shinzon

Player can be killed, house can be raided and destroyed, FULL PvP... Just encourages you not to build a huge mansion with no protection in the middle of an orc camp...

PVH - player vs house

[Traceur]

Originally Posted by James Olson

I don't think anyone is using that flawed logic. Surely they are using the same logic that applies to full loot to housing. "Don't build what you can't afford to lose." Why build a nice house when some douche can just torch it? Why buy a house when I can just tear yours down and build my own? Why even personalize the house, or put any items in it when you can loose it all.

you've just used the same sort of logic yourself -
the "don't do it if you can loose it" logic. here, applied to full loot & FFA PvP:
"why would i carry anything if it can be stolen from me? why would i gather rares or items if it can be taken? why would i go anywhere if people can just attack me? "

for the game's sake you all seem to want a museum in the house - you can use the same sort of logic to ask "why have anything in the house if everyone can break in & empty it out?"

Originally Posted by James Olson

See how this is just a bad idea?

no, i don't: you do things because you want to do them and you face the risks while doing it with strategy & a good doze of taking a chance.

if everything went well - good for you - if it didn't, you've had an opportunity to learn something new.

it's a game - sometimes you win sometimes you loose. I'm not saying I'm always going to be on the winning side - but i will probably just see loosing as a start of a new adventure.

Originally Posted by James Olson

his made houses your permanent stake in the virtual world. Not some disposable commodity which it would become if the houses could be targeted for attack.

what so wrong about having to earn that permanent stake instead of taking it for granted?

if you can't defend it or get someone to defend it for you it's not yours, regardless if it's in your pockets (loot), your body (pvp) or your house (destructible).

Originally Posted by James Olson

This is not shadowbane where there will be a very limited number of slots available for housing. If you thirst for siege style combat, drink deeply from games like daoc or shadowbane. Or request siege combat in this game.

we don't know that actually - last we heard the Dev's seemed undecided:

will there be city sieges?
We'll comment on that later on.

[Doomtrain]

Originally Posted by Jusik

This is a full loot open PvP game. Your stuff is really not going to be that important. Anything that you have will be replaceable. UO was great and everything but this is not UO, so it is time to move on.

Yeah thats my line of thinking
But i want it to be really hard like you need to have siege equipment to destroy a house and no looting after its down all things are just gone
Only owner can try to salvage some thing from the rubles .

[Shinzon]

That sounds fair.

If you don't want to get your house burnt; dont build it in the middle of nowhere, build it near an NPC controled castle; so they can defend your home

I say castle; because thats what I think all of the "Cities" should be, they get turned into cities, when enough players build houses around a said city...

[Eklypse]

The houses musn't be destructible. Instead of this, the houses can be detroyed with time. For example, if the owner don't login in about 2 months, the house could get into ruins and after a period, the ruins could be demolished and the spot get free for another guy.

What do you think?

[Abydos]

I vote No ! I wanna house like uo system !

[James Olson]

Originally Posted by Shinzon

That sounds fair.

If you don't want to get your house burnt; dont build it in the middle of nowhere, build it near an NPC controled castle; so they can defend your home

I say castle; because thats what I think all of the "Cities" should be, they get turned into cities, when enough players build houses around a said city...

Why not take this idea a bit further? Have castles "rule" blocks of player houses. Think shadowbane where an island can only have four or so trees. Each area the castle controls is under the protection and influence of the singular ruling castle. By sieging the castle you can take control of the area and then proceed to rape and pilage the land. This gives motivation to the